Thank you. You are a good person to ask, I'd think. What are the chances of any of the evidence being admissible? I am not a lawyer and I'm pretty ignorant on stuff like this, but I'm doubting this could even make it to the Ninth Circuit.

Unreasonable? It doesn't say enough in the article to conclude that. FTA: "Deputies eventually searched a shed at the home and found the marijuana." They may have made contact with the residents and obtained enough evidence to obtain a search warrant, or they may have obtained consent to search the shed. Either of those scenarios would have been a perfectly legal search.

IDK, if the dog alerted on the fence on his own (like, "hey master, there's nothing in the car but this fence smells mighty interesting"), and this was used to support probable cause for a warrant, I bet nothing gets excluded and they're all boned.

Good faith doctrine, etc.

If the cop, frustrated at getting skunked on the car, took the dog to the nearby house and had him start sniffing, and they searched the shed with no warrant, then maybe exclusions (except for the woman caught with meth -- if she doesn't live there, she may have no standing to contest the legality of her arrest).

Bathia_Mapes:TommyymmoT: Bathia_Mapes: TommyymmoT: Bathia_Mapes: CruiserTwelve: Bathia_Mapes: Just imagine how worse it would have been if this happened in Maricopa County. Sheriff Joe would have a field day.

fnorgby:IDK, if the dog alerted on the fence on his own (like, "hey master, there's nothing in the car but this fence smells mighty interesting"), and this was used to support probable cause for a warrant, I bet nothing gets excluded and they're all boned.

Good faith doctrine, etc.

If the cop, frustrated at getting skunked on the car, took the dog to the nearby house and had him start sniffing, and they searched the shed with no warrant, then maybe exclusions (except for the woman caught with meth -- if she doesn't live there, she may have no standing to contest the legality of her arrest).

I imagine the cop knew the house belonged to the people in the car and led the dog that way intentionally.

Frederick:I imagine the cop knew the house belonged to the people in the car and led the dog that way intentionally.

That's quite a leap.

I imagine 400 pounds of pot might have a slight aroma to it and the cop smelled it and thought it was coming from the car he just pulled over. He let the dog try to sniff it out and the dog, having a much keener sense of smell, was all like "you dumb farking human - the pot's not in the car, it's over here!"

And while I think pot should be legal and no one should even be fined for possession or "manufacture" the current law says it is illegal and the cop did his job. No "hero" tag for the cop doing his job?

violentsalvation:Thank you. You are a good person to ask, I'd think. What are the chances of any of the evidence being admissible? I am not a lawyer and I'm pretty ignorant on stuff like this, but I'm doubting this could even make it to the Ninth Circuit.

Hasn't the SCOTUS already ruled that this is allowed, despite being agaist everything the Founding Fathers stood for, because terrorisms?

Happy Hours:Frederick: I imagine the cop knew the house belonged to the people in the car and led the dog that way intentionally.

That's quite a leap.

I imagine 400 pounds of pot might have a slight aroma to it and the cop smelled it and thought it was coming from the car he just pulled over. He let the dog try to sniff it out and the dog, having a much keener sense of smell, was all like "you dumb farking human - the pot's not in the car, it's over here!"

And while I think pot should be legal and no one should even be fined for possession or "manufacture" the current law says it is illegal and the cop did his job. No "hero" tag for the cop doing his job?

Why even if the scenario went the way you described would the cop be a hero?

Frederick:fnorgby: IDK, if the dog alerted on the fence on his own (like, "hey master, there's nothing in the car but this fence smells mighty interesting"), and this was used to support probable cause for a warrant, I bet nothing gets excluded and they're all boned.

Good faith doctrine, etc.

If the cop, frustrated at getting skunked on the car, took the dog to the nearby house and had him start sniffing, and they searched the shed with no warrant, then maybe exclusions (except for the woman caught with meth -- if she doesn't live there, she may have no standing to contest the legality of her arrest).

I imagine the cop knew the house belonged to the people in the car and led the dog that way intentionally.

That was the impression I got, as well. But TFA doesn't really have enough information to say for sure.

Happy Hours:Frederick: I imagine the cop knew the house belonged to the people in the car and led the dog that way intentionally.

That's quite a leap.

I imagine 400 pounds of pot might have a slight aroma to it and the cop smelled it and thought it was coming from the car he just pulled over. He let the dog try to sniff it out and the dog, having a much keener sense of smell, was all like "you dumb farking human - the pot's not in the car, it's over here!"

And while I think pot should be legal and no one should even be fined for possession or "manufacture" the current law says it is illegal and the cop did his job. No "hero" tag for the cop doing his job?

Ajo had a population of 3700 in 2000, it's a safe bet this house was marked and the cops had been looking for an excuse

Passive Aggressive Larry:Isn't a drug dog's interest in something enough for probable cause to search, or is that just something that some paranoid stoner told me once while we were getting high? My memory of it is....hazy.

Yes, it has held up in the courts despite the controversy regarding false positives, "leading" techniques, and the inability to face your accuser in court. I find the use of drug dog "interest" as probable cause a usurpation of rights violating the 4th amendment. But the war on drugs has trumped a lot of rights.

How do you feel about a drugs dogs ability to gain probable cause for searches?

No AdBlock for real life, though. Dude has re-election posters all over the place. Although I am starting to see an upward trend in the number of them that have been defaced. I'm curious if the solid political bloc known as "grumpy white retirees" will still be enough to get the guy re-elected. They just love the man.

As for the article, the bust will not be thrown out. A police officer can enter property along routes commonly used for visitors and inspect up to your front door without the need for any warrant. The dog picking up the scent adjacent to the property and informing their handlers is enough probable cause to enter based off of a few court cases out there.

No AdBlock for real life, though. Dude has re-election posters all over the place. Although I am starting to see an upward trend in the number of them that have been defaced. I'm curious if the solid political bloc known as "grumpy white retirees" will still be enough to get the guy re-elected. They just love the man.

I wonder if all the people who are up in arms about voter ID laws would object to an investigation of snowbirds in Maricopa who might be registered to vote in more than one state.

Don't think it doesn't happen - a lot of those people take the attitude that laws are only supposed to be enforced against people they don't like.

No No No! Better, at least he isn't Sir Lawrence, but Jesus was way more Jewy, prob. Think black pin-curls and a bigger, lumpier nose. There really isn't that much science in his varying his features to fit in with the neighborhood.

Frederick:bindlestiff2600: whats really neat - is you have to take the handlers word for it, that the dog alerted in the first place

just having the dog present - in effect - provides probable cause

Precisely. And it's not like the defense in a trial can cross examine the K9. It's a very self affirming procedure.

And the dog is quite likely well trained inasmuch as it won't alert on non-drugs unless prompted by the handler, so subjecting the dog to a blind test won't help. (Good luck raising even a reasonable doubt that the dog was prompted.)

Trained to get a snack when when the human expects an illegal drug. It's pretty iffy as to whether any dog gets trained to actually detect drugs, even ignoring the possibility of interference by the handler.

fnorgby:IDK, if the dog alerted on the fence on his own (like, "hey master, there's nothing in the car but this fence smells mighty interesting"), and this was used to support probable cause for a warrant, I bet nothing gets excluded and they're all boned.

Good faith doctrine, etc.

If the cop, frustrated at getting skunked on the car, took the dog to the nearby house and had him start sniffing, and they searched the shed with no warrant, then maybe exclusions (except for the woman caught with meth -- if she doesn't live there, she may have no standing to contest the legality of her arrest).

ReapTheChaos:10 bucks says the traffic stop was staged next to the house in question for this very reason.

^^^this^^^

Just happened to do a traffic stop of a woman from the house. In front of the house, the house that just happened to have had 430lbs of weed in a shed. Plus drugs in the house and an illegal.They knew, probably bad info and they were expecting her to have traffic levels of drugs in her car that they would use to justify a search of her home. Didn't happen that way so they improvised.

libranoelrose:Fark_Guy_Rob: Eh - I'm all for people's right to privacy and all....

But I don't have a problem with this. If every cop in the country wants to walk around America with drug-sniffing dogs and use it to catch people doing drugs illegally - awesome.

Maybe if everyone who did weed suddenly got busted - there would be enough momentum to change the drug laws. Maybe not.

Regardless.....it is currently illegal. A cop caught someone doing something illegal. I don't have a problem with this.

And I'm sure he didn't do anything illegal to get to there.

I like how slippery your slope is.

What do you think was illegal exactly?

The cop smelled weed on a chick who was professionally trafficking 400+ pounds of weed. Is that so hard to believe? Maybe she smelled like weed because she had been handling, or smoking, some of the 400 pounds of weed she had inside her house. The house that also had meth and an illegal alien....

She admits to doing it. She has 400 pounds of weed in her house. She was pulled over outside of her house.

The cop 'claims' she smelled like weed. And people are saying that this is some great abuse of power. Maybe it is. Maybe the laws should be changed. But it's not illegal. And, in this particular case, there isn't anything to suggest the cop was anything less than 100% correct. The cop did his job, the dog did it's job, and a bunch of criminals got caught.

No AdBlock for real life, though. Dude has re-election posters all over the place. Although I am starting to see an upward trend in the number of them that have been defaced. I'm curious if the solid political bloc known as "grumpy white retirees" will still be enough to get the guy re-elected. They just love the man.

As for the article, the bust will not be thrown out. A police officer can enter property along routes commonly used for visitors and inspect up to your front door without the need for any warrant. The dog picking up the scent adjacent to the property and informing their handlers is enough probable cause to enter based off of a few court cases out there.

Good point. It's like how at one point in time, a common way to catch moonshiners was for agents to follow their noses.

Frederick:Fark_Guy_Rob: Regardless.....it is currently illegal. A cop caught someone doing something illegal. I don't have a problem with this.

I wonder what illegal things could be found in your home if a cop were to look?

Let's be realistic here....

There are many laws. And they are not equal. Jaywalking is illegal. Murder is illegal. To say that one is the same as the other is retarded b.s.....400 pounds of weed, meth, and an illegal alien is pretty extremely illegal.

You'd have to look pretty hard and get awfully creative to find anything criminal in my house. Yes, there are blanket laws that can be applied to just about anyone or anything - I'm sure a chemist could make a nice bomb out of things found in my house. If you have a problem with that - let's address that issue by getting rid of b.s. laws. Maybe you think 400 pounds of weed, meth, and illegal immigrants are all cool - then that's fine.

But that still doesn't make this an abuse of power or corrupt cops.

As the laws stand, they seem to have done a fine job. I'm pro-weed and pro-meth; but until the laws change - I don't have either. I'm anti-immigrants though.

Happy Hours:Dinjiin: Bathia_Mapes: I don't have to see crap like that.

No AdBlock for real life, though. Dude has re-election posters all over the place. Although I am starting to see an upward trend in the number of them that have been defaced. I'm curious if the solid political bloc known as "grumpy white retirees" will still be enough to get the guy re-elected. They just love the man.

I wonder if all the people who are up in arms about voter ID laws would object to an investigation of snowbirds in Maricopa who might be registered to vote in more than one state.

Don't think it doesn't happen - a lot of those people take the attitude that laws are only supposed to be enforced against people they don't like.

SchlingFocker:david_gaithersburg: I don't consider drug dealers to be in the same category as murders and rapist, but I do put illegal immigrants in the same category as all other breakers of federal law.

Dealing pot is against federal law.

Murder is against federal law.

If you put illegal immigrants in the same category as all other breakers of federal law, then you put illegal immigrants in the same category as pot dealers and the same category as murderers.

Ergo, you have put murderers and pot dealers in the same category.

..So the local cops need to stop arresting people for murder since they are stepping on the toes of Dear Leader and his little sidekick, Holder. amiright?

Just for the record in most cases they don't just count the grass they also include what it's being held in and any equipment used to smoke it hold it or anything that touches it. I can assure you it wasn't 430 pounds of just grass. So it sounds like a lot but in reality they most likely had less. I don't think there should be laws against plants. Now meth on the other hand and prescription drugs I'm totally against. But you can't make oil, rope, clothes, paper, and a 1000 of other useful things from prescription drugs or meth. But you can make those things from hemp. And it grows from the Earth. It's not just for smoking and getting stupid. It has many uses.

halloran:Just for the record in most cases they don't just count the grass they also include what it's being held in and any equipment used to smoke it hold it or anything that touches it. I can assure you it wasn't 430 pounds of just grass. So it sounds like a lot but in reality they most likely had less. I don't think there should be laws against plants. Now meth on the other hand and prescription drugs I'm totally against. But you can't make oil, rope, clothes, paper, and a 1000 of other useful things from prescription drugs or meth. But you can make those things from hemp. And it grows from the Earth. It's not just for smoking and getting stupid. It has many uses.

halloran:Just for the record in most cases they don't just count the grass they also include what it's being held in and any equipment used to smoke it hold it or anything that touches it. I can assure you it wasn't 430 pounds of just grass. So it sounds like a lot but in reality they most likely had less. I don't think there should be laws against plants. Now meth on the other hand and prescription drugs I'm totally against. But you can't make oil, rope, clothes, paper, and a 1000 of other useful things from prescription drugs or meth. But you can make those things from hemp. And it grows from the Earth. It's not just for smoking and getting stupid. It has many uses.

Yeah, yeah yeah - you sounds stupid when you start ranting about making clothing and paper out of hemp. Sure, it's not just for "getting stupid" but I think it's done that to you.

So, sure - cops shouldn't be weighing packaging material when making a case but how much do you suppose the plastic it was wrapped in weighed?

Fark_Guy_Rob:Frederick: Fark_Guy_Rob: Regardless.....it is currently illegal. A cop caught someone doing something illegal. I don't have a problem with this.

I wonder what illegal things could be found in your home if a cop were to look?

Let's be realistic here....

There are many laws. And they are not equal. Jaywalking is illegal. Murder is illegal. To say that one is the same as the other is retarded b.s.....400 pounds of weed, meth, and an illegal alien is pretty extremely illegal.

You'd have to look pretty hard and get awfully creative to find anything criminal in my house. Yes, there are blanket laws that can be applied to just about anyone or anything - I'm sure a chemist could make a nice bomb out of things found in my house. If you have a problem with that - let's address that issue by getting rid of b.s. laws. Maybe you think 400 pounds of weed, meth, and illegal immigrants are all cool - then that's fine.

But that still doesn't make this an abuse of power or corrupt cops.

As the laws stand, they seem to have done a fine job. I'm pro-weed and pro-meth; but until the laws change - I don't have either. I'm anti-immigrants though.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I'm not disparaging yours. I consider myself to be an old time libertarian; so yeah -I am cool with drugs, even immigrants (I dont believe anyone should have to qualify to live in the US).

I vehemently oppose victim-less crimes, which I consider drug laws to be, so I am particularly sensitive to those.

I understand the "if you disagree with a law, work to change it" theory, and I agree in principle. But when the will of the people is flagrantly dismissed; such as state pot laws trumped by federal pot laws (among many other injustices), I think it is appropriate to engage in civil disobedience -meaning I imbibe.

I disagree with you on the abuse of power. I think 4th amendment rights especially are being routinely and systematically violated in the name of the war on drugs. I havent read enough on this case to go so far as to say corrupt cops. I'm considering overly entitled cops.

violentsalvation:You know something like this could happen anywhere in America, these days.

Actually here in minnesota a drug testing lab was found to pretty much making up the results. Every police department dropped them and all the cases they got evidence for are now being reviewed. If that happened in Arizona nothing would have happened.

The All-Powerful Atheismo:Happy Hours:I wonder if all the people who are up in arms about voter ID laws would object to an investigation of snowbirds in Maricopa who might be registered to vote in more than one state.

Don't think it doesn't happen - a lot of those people take the attitude that laws are only supposed to be enforced against people they don't like.

your evidence is overwhelming.

So would you object to Arizona's Secretary of State comparing AZ's voter rolls with the rolls of other states where snowbird's also have residences?

Or might that disenfranchise some of the grey-hairs who are wealthy enough to have a winter home in AZ?

I'm not accusing anyone specifically and I'm not making a claim that it's extremely widespread. I'm just sure it happens. I can't prove it, but I think it's something that would be easy to look into.

The All-Powerful Atheismo:Happy Hours:Yeah, yeah yeah - you sounds stupid when you start ranting about making clothing and paper out of hemp. Sure, it's not just for "getting stupid" but I think it's done that to you.

Person A: factual statement

Person B: "you're stupid!"

Person Me: "Person B is stupid."

Look at what you've done! (actually, I think person B started it before you said that...whatevs)

The All-Powerful Atheismo:Happy Hours:Yeah, yeah yeah - you sounds stupid when you start ranting about making clothing and paper out of hemp. Sure, it's not just for "getting stupid" but I think it's done that to you.

Person A: factual statement

Person B: "you're stupid!"

Person Me: "Person B is stupid."

What I'm trying to tell you is you sound like some naive stoner fresh out of high school when you start talking about the wonders of the cannabis plant in order to support the legalization of marijuana for recreational use.

Yes, hemp can be used for a lot of purposes (some of which you mentioned) but what you really care about is that you can buy it legally so you can get high. I didn't say you were stupid, I said you sound stupid.

Hemp can be legally grown in a number of countries and yet I don't see all these hemp products making a big impact on the market even though it's perfectly legal to import them into the US.

when most of fark is obviously high, it might be time to legalize the shiat. The argument against legalizing it, is all the crazy shiat most the high people of fark tend to say or hint they are willing to do to get the shiat legal, like vote for sociopathic Ron Paul.

The deputy had to "smell marijuana" in the car to make the search legal. It said she was pulled over for a traffic violation, If he then called in a k-9 unit to sniff the car he had to have a reason to detain her until it arrived.

ChasingPi:when most of fark is obviously high, it might be time to legalize the shiat. The argument against legalizing it, is all the crazy shiat most the high people of fark tend to say or hint they are willing to do to get the shiat legal, like vote for sociopathic Ron Paul

My brother is a contractor and was going to a friend's house one night to check on doing some tile work for him. The cops pulled him over because they were checking all cars that didn't belong in the neighborhood (out of state tags) and they saw a crowbar in his car. They called this burglery tools. This of course allowed them to get a warrent to check his car and they found one muscle relaxer, on oxycodone and another narcotic that he couldn't come up with a prescription for. He then went to jail and had to pay a bail bondsman. He did get out of it because he found a prescription for the two, but the other one for some reason they didn't include in the charges. It did however cost him several hundred dollars for the bail bondsman. Sometimes the cops abuse power, 400 + pounds of marijuana is probably not an abuse.

He wouldn't be deported if he was here legally. Notice that the other two mentioned in the article are not being deported. Also this is total BS and is the police way of covering up the surveillance they were running on these people. They expected drugs in the car, and when they weren't present, had to improvise. It wasn't chance. And yes, it's still total BS.

Uisce Beatha:Fark_Guy_Rob: If every cop in the country wants to walk around America with drug-sniffing dogs and use it to catch people doing drugs illegally - awesome.

Well, since drug dog accuracy seems to be about 50%, I have a problem with this. Might as well have cops walk around house to house flipping a coin. "Heads, not this one. Tails, GOGOGO!!!"

The truth is, drug dogs can alert on nothing, more often than most police officers would like to admit. Of course, some states train their dogs to alert off things other than drugs, just to provide probable cause.

I'm not going to disagree with your first linked article; but I will say that seems awfully biased. It's taking one particular dog and one particular handler and saying their accuracy rate is poor. I'm not 'pro false positives'.

But take ANY tool that requires a technician to read it or calibrate it - and there is opportunity to cheat. I can adjust a scale so that it's heavy or light. That doesn't mean scales don't work.

Dogs can be highly effective in detecting drugs. Just like BAC meters and speed guns.

I don't think we should abandon those things because they aren't tamper-proof. Again - if your of the opinion that drug-sniffing dogs shouldn't be used, that's fine. I might agree with you if I were better educated on the subject. But right now, we do use them. And in this case - the dog seemed to do a spot-on perfect job. There might be false positives - but in this case - I don't believe there was.

Everybody who has been to Ajo, AZ raise your hand!!this is a small dumpy desert town. I went there once as a kid with my friend and his parents. It was the hottest, driest, most desolate experience of my life.the town is so small, I guarantee you that the cops knew about this house but never had Probable Cause. having a reason to be onscene with a dog that just happened to hit on the fence, booyah, they said.

Happy Hours:Frederick: I imagine the cop knew the house belonged to the people in the car and led the dog that way intentionally.

That's quite a leap.

I imagine 400 pounds of pot might have a slight aroma to it and the cop smelled it and thought it was coming from the car he just pulled over. He let the dog try to sniff it out and the dog, having a much keener sense of smell, was all like "you dumb farking human - the pot's not in the car, it's over here!"

And while I think pot should be legal and no one should even be fined for possession or "manufacture" the current law says it is illegal and the cop did his job. No "hero" tag for the cop doing his job?

Fark_Guy_Rob:Frederick: Fark_Guy_Rob: Regardless.....it is currently illegal. A cop caught someone doing something illegal. I don't have a problem with this.

I wonder what illegal things could be found in your home if a cop were to look?

Let's be realistic here....

There are many laws. And they are not equal. Jaywalking is illegal. Murder is illegal. To say that one is the same as the other is retarded b.s.....400 pounds of weed, meth, and an illegal alien is pretty extremely illegal.

Not only are dogs used to create probable cause they also react to their handlers suspicions.

They are wrong 50% of the time EXCEPT for Mexicans it jumps to over 70% wrong.(no the dogs are not racist the handlers tend to be more suspicious of Mexicans)

There at least needs to be some sort of penalty given for searches that provide nothing - when a canine was used to create the probable cause.1k cash on the spot to the victim of the search for a vehicle and 1k per room of a home.

It's just an excuse to search anytime a cop feels like it and to blame the dog when nothing is found.

Madbassist1:MDGeist: I wish alcohol was illegal and as venomously hunted down as pot is by police. So many people would still be alive instead of killed on the road by some drunk fark.

There's too many people in the world as it is. Tough DUI laws arent for saving lives, they're for saving insurance companies money

/same with seat belt laws.

You might be forgetting "medical bills" somewhere in that equation. Though even with insurance, well, those making the decision to drive drunk are also driving up the insurance premiums of those who stay clean.

Addicts (of any stripe) rarely recognize the impact of their addiction outside of their own lives.

MDGeist:I wish alcohol was illegal and as venomously hunted down as pot is by police. So many people would still be alive instead of killed on the road by some drunk fark.

Uhm...wrong. Go study the effects of Prohibition. Go on, I'll wait.

There were kids selling alcohol, just like kids selling stuff today. I know this does not happen on every corner in the ghetto, but its been known to happen, yes.

There was no availability problems whatsoever, have you ever heard of anyone really complaining they never got hooch during Prohibition? Nope. Same as today.

There were enormous profits to be derived from the manufacture and sale of Illegal Liquor, which helped organized crime expand.

At least one state I know of had a '3 strikes' type law. Michigan had a 4 time felony law, known as the 'Life for a pint' law.

In the name of keeping people safe from drugs (a health issue, not a criminal one) the 4th amendment was basically gutted in 1986. Thus we began the slow slide into the modern day police state we see today.

Prohibition never works, will never work, and only serves to give more power to the state and less rights to individuals. Petty pointy head morons having power over YOU is not the way to go.

Drugs/Alcohol are medical issues, not criminal ones. When you make them criminal issues then everyone becomes a criminal, because most everyone uses some sort of drug. There is no way to know exact figures, but I'd guess (strictly my own opinion here) if you include prescription drugs its most everyone in the US.

Happy Hours:Dinjiin: Bathia_Mapes: I don't have to see crap like that.

No AdBlock for real life, though. Dude has re-election posters all over the place. Although I am starting to see an upward trend in the number of them that have been defaced. I'm curious if the solid political bloc known as "grumpy white retirees" will still be enough to get the guy re-elected. They just love the man.

I wonder if all the people who are up in arms about voter ID laws would object to an investigation of snowbirds in Maricopa who might be registered to vote in more than one state.

Don't think it doesn't happen - a lot of those people take the attitude that laws are only supposed to be enforced against people they don't like.

But according to anti-voter ID laws, there are very, very few voting fraud cases in the US (although a lot of those same people claim Bush stole Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004...).

I say just use the ink crap they do in the middle east. It seems to work and will prevent vote fraud without stopping people from voting. Although it doesn't stop poor people from voting so the Republicans won't like it.

elffster:Petty pointy head morons having power over YOU is not the way to go.

Nor is letting people run amok on the assurance that "they mean well" or "they'll straighten out eventually".

If all substance abuse ever affected was the individual who chose to abuse it, this whole issue would be far less an issue than it is. Sadly, that's not the case. The effect of it isn't isolated. It's shared. And while I think any solution that results in the least amount of government/societal coercion is the best one, I don't see that "no coercion at all" is an option, given the circumstances surrounding the problem.

Addicts have a hard time seeing themselves as addicts, let alone how their addiction "ripples out" to affect the rest of society: not only the healthcare system, or insurance, but their families, their friends. None of this comes before their habit. That's a problem.

If all this was was just about "saving stupid people from themselves", I'm fairly certain you would see a lot less people concerned about the plight of the addict.

Now this? This I heartily agree with. The studies are plain here: Rehab trumps Incarceration in every instance. I don't necessarily believe this warrants the Law not being involved at all, but I think it needs to be far less involved than it is at present.

Let's use the most successful methods to tackle the problem. Not the ones that suit our wounded egos best.

SkunkWerks:Nor is letting people run amok on the assurance that "they mean well" or "they'll straighten out eventually".

Thats true, someone in the depth of a week long Meth binge is pretty farked in the head. But to make them a criminal vs. giving them medical help is two totally different things.

We as a nation are happy to criminalize folks at the drop of a hat, to serve the Prison Industrial Complex. In my opinion a Prison should be run as a non-profit entity, and we should be giving out for free help to anyone who wants to get off any addicted/habitual use of a substance.

Potheads are not the problem. Meth is an ugly drug and its not really the issue, either. Its the legality they are bound up in that makes for such massive social problems.

But, as long as there is money in it to harass users and persecute them, then the assholes in power will do it. We will never ever win a war on drugs.

Ive said it a few times, its not a war on drugs anyway. Its clearly a war on people.

Cops are cowards (some of them, yep) so they want to attack passive potheads instead of going after the raging methed out loony.

And dumb ass sheep keep voting for politicians that are 'strong on drugs', meanwhile everyone is kept stupid with lots of 'script drugs and another drug thats everywhere yet never addressed as one and its quite mind-numbing: Television.

This is getting ridiculous. They new the damn house sold weed. They didn't want to out their informant, so they made up this fake stop. "Oh look we just happened to get lucky with the dog" I know the cops think we're stupid but man this is a farce.

Happy Hours:Frederick: I imagine the cop knew the house belonged to the people in the car and led the dog that way intentionally.

That's quite a leap.

Why? Whose address is on your driver's license?

And what neighborhood dog whizzed on the fence, attracting the dog to the fence? K-9's are trained to pick up on their handlers' cues more so than to sniff out drugs. The "success" rate speaks for itself.

machoprogrammer:Happy Hours: Dinjiin: Bathia_Mapes: I don't have to see crap like that.

No AdBlock for real life, though. Dude has re-election posters all over the place. Although I am starting to see an upward trend in the number of them that have been defaced. I'm curious if the solid political bloc known as "grumpy white retirees" will still be enough to get the guy re-elected. They just love the man.

I wonder if all the people who are up in arms about voter ID laws would object to an investigation of snowbirds in Maricopa who might be registered to vote in more than one state.

Don't think it doesn't happen - a lot of those people take the attitude that laws are only supposed to be enforced against people they don't like.

But according to anti-voter ID laws, there are very, very few voting fraud cases in the US (although a lot of those same people claim Bush stole Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004...).

I say just use the ink crap they do in the middle east. It seems to work and will prevent vote fraud without stopping people from voting. Although it doesn't stop poor people from voting so the Republicans won't like it.

at the risk of going off topic here, I must clarify that issues in 2000 and 2004 had nothing to do with voter fraud, but the disenfranchisement of registered voters (which, coincidentally, id requirements were outlawed to prevent as well. We wouldn't want anyone threatening your livelihood based on your vote, now that they know who you are and where you live.) and possibly mechanical/software manipulation with diebold machines.

also

MDGeist:I wish alcohol was illegal and as venomously hunted down as pot is by police. So many people would still be alive instead of killed on the road by some drunk fark.

well played sir, that was a pretty tricky angle for a troll. I'm not gonna score it though

The amount of resources the police department uses for pot is a joke. They have limited resources and don't need to prioritize marijuana as one of the highest things on their list. That is why the police are just as at fault if not more than the asshats who pass laws.

Scorpio Rex:Happy Hours: Frederick: I imagine the cop knew the house belonged to the people in the car and led the dog that way intentionally.

That's quite a leap.

Why? Whose address is on your driver's license?

And what neighborhood dog whizzed on the fence, attracting the dog to the fence? K-9's are trained to pick up on their handlers' cues more so than to sniff out drugs. The "success" rate speaks for itself.

It's not a leap, it's not a hop, it's not even a lean.

Well, at least your tin foil hat is firmly in place.

As for the reliability of drug sniffing dogs, please cite your sources.

Fark_Guy_Rob:But take ANY tool that requires a technician to read it or calibrate it - and there is opportunity to cheat. I can adjust a scale so that it's heavy or light. That doesn't mean scales don't work.

It's not just a matter of calibration though. In studied, drug dogs have shown anywhere from a 44% to dismal 14.6% success rate (123 failures in 144 searches) - citation.

Using drug dogs, especially as the *primary* means to determine probable cause, is inherently flawed. As a tool to search once a warrant is obtained? Sure, great, go ahead, they work great there. But walking house to house to determine where to search, like you suggested? Awful idea.

As for BAC meters, well, their accuracy isn't all that great either, but they are still better than the drug dog's

And yes, the drug dog did net some massive dealers here. I would argue, of course without knowing the full story, that it is somewhat irrelevant. The exclusionary rule is important, for a reason.

Happy Hours:Frederick: I imagine the cop knew the house belonged to the people in the car and led the dog that way intentionally.

That's quite a leap.

I imagine 400 pounds of pot might have a slight aroma to it and the cop smelled it and thought it was coming from the car he just pulled over. He let the dog try to sniff it out and the dog, having a much keener sense of smell, was all like "you dumb farking human - the pot's not in the car, it's over here!"

And while I think pot should be legal and no one should even be fined for possession or "manufacture" the current law says it is illegal and the cop did his job. No "hero" tag for the cop doing his job?

The theory for a dog sniff bring the basis for probable cause for a warrant is that a magistrate reviews the evidence, taking the decision to search or not out of the cops' hands. That's enough protection, says the SCOTUS, from the " general warrant" used in colonial days.

This is a perfect example of why high schools should teach con law. It doesn't remotely work the way people assume it does.

elffster:... we should be giving out for free help to anyone who wants to get off any addicted/habitual use of a substance.

Doesn't that absolve people from exercising any self control? Doesn't it give out a message that it's OK to take anything you want, as often as you want, because the rest of us will pay for treatment any time you want?

I'm not a great fan of drug laws as they stand, but I think any relaxation should come with an understanding that dying in a gutter is a likely outcome of unwise consumption. It's about personal responsibility.

It's a substance, it has addictive properties, and I've seen all of the things inherent in it's habitual users that I've seen with other "harder" drugs. In honesty, the type of person here probably matters a great deal more here in terms of how destructive (self or outwardly) an addict they make than the drug itself. The notion that pot addiction, pot addicts, and the whole general "warm and fuzzy" way the legalization movement chooses to portray them, is a lot of fairy tales.

You don't convince the middle-of-the-road folks by feeding them fantasy. As a person who feels full-on legalization isn't the way to go, but decriminalization is, I expect habitual users to adhere to these sorts of myths.

There's an obvious conflict of interest there, and it's decidedly not in favor of being honest.

elffster:Ive said it a few times, its not a war on drugs anyway. Its clearly a war on people.

Ehhh... fomenting conspiracy theories doesn't help either. While the road to Hell might be paved with good intentions, it's helpful to remember that they're, yanno, good intentions, at least to begin with.

What I will say of the "War on Drugs" is that it suffers from the same issue as the "War on Terror". As you've pointed out, a "war" can be won. It can at least have a victory that is clear in it's indecisiveness due to the fact that it's waged against a country or faction. "Defeat" can therefore be gauged and measured concretely.

A War on Terror is a misnomer because it's war on an ideal or practice. So long as anyone still holds the ideal and acts on it, there's no victory. Similarly you can't declare war on an inanimate object and expect anything resembling clear or decisive results.

It sounds swell in the papers though. To the right sort of people, it feels like such an attractive notion that it's obvious conceit and fallacy are immediately overlooked. It feels like you can "win". This is the same sort of logic pandered to people buying lottery tickets. All that said, at the beginning was there an intent at the outset by the government to actually declare war on it's own citizens- here or in other countries? I really don't think so.

Misguided as it is, and as detrimental as its results often are, it's still just that: misguided.

elffster:But, as long as there is money in it to harass users and persecute them, then the assholes in power will do it. We will never ever win a war on drugs.

Odd you should mention this. One of my own strongest feelings against full-legalization: I really don't need my own Government suckling any more than it already does from the teat of Big Pharma, or Big Agriculture, for that matter.

Checked the taxes on Cigarettes lately? I'm fairly certain that it's several hundred percent beyond the actual value of a pack. Now ask yourself if Uncle Sam has any vested interest in stopping people from riddling themselves with Lung Cancer.

That's right: they don't.

elffster:And dumb ass sheep keep voting for politicians that are 'strong on drugs', meanwhile everyone is kept stupid with lots of 'script drugs

...don't think they wouldn't do the same with pot, or any other drug that might get legalized, had they the opportunity.

It's a substance, it has addictive properties, and I've seen all of the things inherent in it's habitual users that I've seen with other "harder" drugs.

There are a lot of pot smokers who claim that it's harmless, non-addictive and safer than many other legal drugs. In which case, I ask myself, why do they go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about it. It seems clear to me that many of those who claim pot to be non-addictive can think about little else.

Without being willfully ignorant I don't understand how anyone could possibly think that

1. that this was the first time they brought a shipment through this border town, you don't cut your teeth on 400 lbs,2. someone moving that sorta bulk through a town of 3700 isn't known by each and every person of interest in town3. the cops hadn't caught wind of it one way or another.4. This bust was an operation... also, this operation was a bust

It's a substance, it has addictive properties, and I've seen all of the things inherent in it's habitual users that I've seen with other "harder" drugs.

There are a lot of pot smokers who claim that it's harmless, non-addictive and safer than many other legal drugs. In which case, I ask myself, why do they go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about it. It seems clear to me that many of those who claim pot to be non-addictive can think about little else.

fnorgby:IDK, if the dog alerted on the fence on his own (like, "hey master, there's nothing in the car but this fence smells mighty interesting"), and this was used to support probable cause for a warrant, I bet nothing gets excluded and they're all boned.

Good faith doctrine, etc.

If the cop, frustrated at getting skunked on the car, took the dog to the nearby house and had him start sniffing, and they searched the shed with no warrant, then maybe exclusions (except for the woman caught with meth -- if she doesn't live there, she may have no standing to contest the legality of her arrest).

The former scenario sounds quite reasonable to me. They let the dog wander because they shouldn't point out to the dog exactly what they are interested in. If the dog alerted on something other than what they thought was the target I have no problem with that.

Happy Hours:Frederick: I imagine the cop knew the house belonged to the people in the car and led the dog that way intentionally.

That's quite a leap.

I imagine 400 pounds of pot might have a slight aroma to it and the cop smelled it and thought it was coming from the car he just pulled over. He let the dog try to sniff it out and the dog, having a much keener sense of smell, was all like "you dumb farking human - the pot's not in the car, it's over here!"

And while I think pot should be legal and no one should even be fined for possession or "manufacture" the current law says it is illegal and the cop did his job. No "hero" tag for the cop doing his job?

Good point--the cop probably didn't realize where the smell was coming from.

Frederick:bindlestiff2600: whats really neat - is you have to take the handlers word for it, that the dog alerted in the first place

just having the dog present - in effect - provides probable cause

Precisely. And it's not like the defense in a trial can cross examine the K9. It's a very self affirming procedure.

It could be subject to test--demonstrate the dog can find the drugs and not false alarm. Also, the handler should be decertified if too many alerts don't turn up drugs.

As far as I'm concerned, this is just plain site, extended to a dog, who is generally considered a fully-fledged officer.

Let's say an officer pulls over a car, finds nothing, but then looks at an nearby property and sees a giant greenhouse filled with cultivated marijuana plants. I doubt anyone here would have (legal) problems with that officer making a bust on that pot, which was clearly visible to him from the road. The pot in that shed was essentially just as visible to the dog as the greenhouse would be to a human officer.

Choadzilla:Drug Sniffing dogs are always right, right? At least most of the time though, right?

Right?

I remember an occasion in junior high when a drug dog making a sweep of student lockers during classes hit on my friend's locker. Before she could be brought out of class and open the padlock, they crowbarred the door and let the dog go to town.....eating the hamburger in her lunch sack. No drugs were found, she had to get a new locker assignment at the ass-end of campus, and didn't even get comp'ed a lunch for the screw-up.

Gr8Zen:As far as I'm concerned, this is just plain site, extended to a dog, who is generally considered a fully-fledged officer.

Let's say an officer pulls over a car, finds nothing, but then looks at an nearby property and sees a giant greenhouse filled with cultivated marijuana plants. I doubt anyone here would have (legal) problems with that officer making a bust on that pot, which was clearly visible to him from the road. The pot in that shed was essentially just as visible to the dog as the greenhouse would be to a human officer.

ImJustaTroll:This is getting ridiculous. They new the damn house sold weed. They didn't want to out their informant, so they made up this fake stop. "Oh look we just happened to get lucky with the dog" I know the cops think we're stupid but man this is a farce.

Why? If the cops suspected that they had dope at the house, why not just take the dog there for a sniff? There was no reason to do a fake traffic stop in front of the house.

Happy Hours:I see nothing about a 14.6% success rate in that article, but thanks for the cite nonetheless.

FTLink: "Dog/handler teams correctly completed a search with no alerts in just 21 of the 144 walk-throughs. The other 123 searches produced an astounding 225 alerts, every one of them false." 123 false hits on 144 walk-throughs = 85.4% false positive alert, aka, 14.6% of the time they were correct

CruiserTwelve:ImJustaTroll: This is getting ridiculous. They new the damn house sold weed. They didn't want to out their informant, so they made up this fake stop. "Oh look we just happened to get lucky with the dog" I know the cops think we're stupid but man this is a farce.

Why? If the cops suspected that they had dope at the house, why not just take the dog there for a sniff? There was no reason to do a fake traffic stop in front of the house.

Also, FTLink: "Dog/handler teams correctly completed a search with no alerts in just 21 of the 144 walk-throughs. The other 123 searches produced an astounding 225 alerts, every one of them false." 123 false hits on 144 walk-throughs = 85.4% false positive alert, aka, 14.6% of the time they were correct

Cops can take their dogs anywhere that is accessible to the public. They could have walked the dog past that house any time they wanted. They didn't need to fake a traffic stop in front of the house to gain access to that area. That's my point.

Also,FTLink: "Dog/handler teams correctly completed a search with no alerts in just 21 of the 144 walk-throughs. The other 123 searches produced an astounding 225 alerts, every one of them false." 123 false hits on 144 walk-throughs = 85.4% false positive alert, aka, 14.6% of the time they were correct

Any comment?

I confess that I know next to nothing about police dogs. It sounds like the dogs they tested didn't do too well. I don't know if it's fair to expand that study to indict all police dogs, or if the study is unique to the dogs tested.

CruiserTwelve:ImJustaTroll: This is getting ridiculous. They new the damn house sold weed. They didn't want to out their informant, so they made up this fake stop. "Oh look we just happened to get lucky with the dog" I know the cops think we're stupid but man this is a farce.

Why? If the cops suspected that they had dope at the house, why not just take the dog there for a sniff? There was no reason to do a fake traffic stop in front of the house.

This is the same thing as shaking you down from top to bottom, having your car tossed, being forced to sit on the side of the road for half an hour. then having them tell you they pulled you over because "your license plate frame partly obscured the top 1/4 inch of the state name on your plate".

Happened to me a couple of years ago in south texas when I went down there for work purposes and came back within 24 hours. I mean come on, it fit the profile of a drug run, why not just tell me that instead of bullshiat me about it?

They have to invent probable cause, if they dont have it already. Got them pretty mad at me when I politely offered to take my toolkit from the trunk and remove the license plate frame in the interest of "safety" since it was such a serious thing.

They had ridden my a$$ for ten minutes and even put a car on the side of the road with its lights on, then tried to block me from moving over before they said "fark it" and started on their little game.

fnorgby:The theory for a dog sniff bring the basis for probable cause for a warrant is that a magistrate reviews the evidence, taking the decision to search or not out of the cops' hands. That's enough protection, says the SCOTUS, from the " general warrant" used in colonial days.

This is a perfect example of why high schools should teach con law. It doesn't remotely work the way people assume it does.

That'd be great if the Magistrate wasn't working with the police force. They are supposed to be separate. They aren't anymore. The magistrate just rubber stamps what the cop says and let the chips fall where they may. Its sad.

FTFA : The discovery came after a deputy made a traffic stop in front of the home. The deputy smelled marijuana in the car, reportedly driven by Womack, and called for additional deputies and a drug-sniffing dog.

The dog did not smell drugs in the car but alerted deputies to the fence line of a nearby house.

Deputies eventually searched a shed at the home and found the marijuana, along with an illegal immigrant identified as Lopez-Zavala.

That part about "eventually searched a shed" makes it sound like they didn't go right in as soon as the dog started doing whatever drug dogs do. The article doesn't say if they got a warrant. Did they? If that "eventually" thing is because step one was "go get a warrant", then I'm fine with this. I have no idea if they could get a warrant under those circumstances or not, but if they went to a judge and a judge gave them a warrant, then I'm not going to biatch.

If they didn't have a warrant, this this is clearly an unconstitutional search.

Happy Hours:And while I think pot should be legal and no one should even be fined for possession or "manufacture" the current law says it is illegal and the cop did his job. No "hero" tag for the cop doing his job?

If the cop did this search without a warrant, then he broke the law and should be locked up. If he had a warrant, then I have no issue with it other than my generic "pot shouldn't be illegal" stance.

Also,FTLink: "Dog/handler teams correctly completed a search with no alerts in just 21 of the 144 walk-throughs. The other 123 searches produced an astounding 225 alerts, every one of them false." 123 false hits on 144 walk-throughs = 85.4% false positive alert, aka, 14.6% of the time they were correct

Any comment?

I confess that I know next to nothing about police dogs. It sounds like the dogs they tested didn't do too well. I don't know if it's fair to expand that study to indict all police dogs, or if the study is unique to the dogs tested.

21 out of 144 correctly did not give a positive alert.C12, in those tests there were zero, as in NO positives to be found. The dogs were given nothing to alert on.

Trained to get a snack when when the human expects an illegal drug. It's pretty iffy as to whether any dog gets trained to actually detect drugs, even ignoring the possibility of interference by the handler.

do you know how I know you don't know what you are talking about? I've highlighted the section.

fnorgby:IDK, if the dog alerted on the fence on his own (like, "hey master, there's nothing in the car but this fence smells mighty interesting"), and this was used to support probable cause for a warrant, I bet nothing gets excluded and they're all boned.

Good faith doctrine, etc.

If the cop, frustrated at getting skunked on the car, took the dog to the nearby house and had him start sniffing, and they searched the shed with no warrant, then maybe exclusions (except for the woman caught with meth -- if she doesn't live there, she may have no standing to contest the legality of her arrest).

You don't require suspicion to march a dog around in public and let it sniff. No one has a reasonable expectation not to be smelled.

Dog alerts, rightly or wrongly, are sufficient for probable cause to search without a warrant.

MaudlinMutantMollusk:BarkingUnicorn: The funny part is that the cop smelled grass in the car but the dog didn't.

Personally, I smell bullshiat

Actually that supports the cop more than it hurts him. A human can catch a wiff on the breeze and not know the source. A dishonest or shiatty canine officer would have led his dog to alert on the car, not a nearby shed.

orbister:elffster: ... we should be giving out for free help to anyone who wants to get off any addicted/habitual use of a substance.

Doesn't that absolve people from exercising any self control? Doesn't it give out a message that it's OK to take anything you want, as often as you want, because the rest of us will pay for treatment any time you want?

I'm not a great fan of drug laws as they stand, but I think any relaxation should come with an understanding that dying in a gutter is a likely outcome of unwise consumption. It's about personal responsibility.

Smackledorfer:fnorgby: IDK, if the dog alerted on the fence on his own (like, "hey master, there's nothing in the car but this fence smells mighty interesting"), and this was used to support probable cause for a warrant, I bet nothing gets excluded and they're all boned.

Good faith doctrine, etc.

If the cop, frustrated at getting skunked on the car, took the dog to the nearby house and had him start sniffing, and they searched the shed with no warrant, then maybe exclusions (except for the woman caught with meth -- if she doesn't live there, she may have no standing to contest the legality of her arrest).

You don't require suspicion to march a dog around in public and let it sniff. No one has a reasonable expectation not to be smelled.

Dog alerts, rightly or wrongly, are sufficient for probable cause to search without a warrant.

Coin flips are more accurate. Why don't we just let cops flip a coin to determine whether they have probable cause or not? They'd be right more often, and it makes just as much sense.

Inside the residence there were several people who were temporarily detained. A search warrant was obtained, and inside the shed deputies found 25 bales of marijuana with an overall weight of over 430 pounds, along with a male individual who was later determined to be an illegal alien.

The driver of the vehicle, identified as Mashelle L. Womack (DOB 11/04/72), admitted to having transported the drugs to her residence and stored them there.

It's a substance, it has addictive properties, and I've seen all of the things inherent in it's habitual users that I've seen with other "harder" drugs.

There are a lot of pot smokers who claim that it's harmless, non-addictive and safer than many other legal drugs. In which case, I ask myself, why do they go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about it. It seems clear to me that many of those who claim pot to be non-addictive can think about little else.

Mostly because its not a simple drive to the bottle-o to get some. It involves interacting with a criminal, and at any point during and after the transaction the boys in blue could rock up and arrest/charge you. Even if you grow your own (even then beer is easier to make :) you are even more so under the constant fear of capture. Its sort of like if you lived with your car parked illegally out the front of your house, you are constantly waiting for the moment when it gets towed (only worse). Hence why they seem to talk about too much - its often on their minds, before, during and even after (drug tests at work, implements at home).

It's not really fun being a criminal when you really do consider yourself a good citizen.

Smackledorfer:MaudlinMutantMollusk: BarkingUnicorn: The funny part is that the cop smelled grass in the car but the dog didn't.

Personally, I smell bullshiat

Actually that supports the cop more than it hurts him. A human can catch a wiff on the breeze and not know the source. A dishonest or shiatty canine officer would have led his dog to alert on the car, not a nearby shed.